Exploring one emulsion.

airfrogusmc said:
Roger it is relevant because to do the zone system properly you need consistency in all aspects of the process and that all starts with the proper ASA/ISO. It is like building on a solid foundation and the tests all do away with all the variances such as lens manufacturing and variances in shutter speeds. It does work and did work for Adams and other B&W zone system photographers.

It won't make you a great landscape photographer and I tend to now be more like Winogrand/Eisenstadt street shooter. I sometimes don't even meter because I know that in the summer bright sun at 1600 ISO that my exposure will be f/11 at 1/2000 and in the hard shadow it will be f/8 at 1/1000 or there about.

But if I were to ever start shooting large format landscapes again I would use the zone system. I would redo all the tests for the camera and lenses I would be using but thats me. Flavor to test but it does work. Without the tests how do you know what the proper ASA is for the camera and lens you are using? How do you know the normal dev time is for the film/dev combo or the way you agitate or N -1 neg development is? Do you have to do it? No. It can give the photographer more control over the entire process and is a way to consistently visualize the way a final print will look like at the moment of exposure.

In the way I work today I don't use it but those sensitivities are all part of who Im as a photographer. It is there. When I was still shooting 35mm B&W film on the streets I did similar to what you say in #3.

Many greats like Winogrand and Eisenstadt didn't even use meters. They relied on their experience and knowledge. Weston, Adams and many of the f/64 crowd used the zone system. Many different ways to work but understanding how the process works is such valuable knowledge as well as knowing what film and dev combos work for the way you need your final images to be what ever road you take.
Click to expand...
Well, EI anyway. Determining ISO is beyond most people, including me. If you can do it, I salute you.

Basically, ISO is a combination of opinion and arbitrary choice. EI is the same only more so. The only question is what degree of (sometimes false) precision you seek.

What do you LOSE by giving an extra stop, or even two stops, of exposure with large format? Nothing, as long as you are (a) consistent and (b) happy with the result.

Cheers,

R.
 
"Where is the OP? I feel like we are talking to ourselves."

I'm still here. I have had my question answered, to my satisfaction and I thank you all again for your time and efforts.

With best regards, Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
Yes, I'd say developing the film yourself and having it printed at a lab can lead to "more-than-everyday results."

How you go about this will depend a lot on how your lab will do the printing. Darkroom or digital prints? A straight print or with dodging and burning?

Since printing is sort of out of your hands, you may not get the results you want with the film and developer you initially choose. Read Mike Johnston's posts on FDP (film-developer-paper) to see how the characteristic curves of the film+developer and the paper combine to produce the tonal distribution of the final print. Like Roger says, you'll probably have to taste test until you find a FD that you like with the P that the lab uses.
 
Perhaps a more experienced person can comment on this, but I’ve found using the zone system on 135 to be done in a sort of compromising way. In a 36 shot roll I am likely to encounter a variety of contrast ranges in my scenes. I can use the zone system to place my textured shadows accurately in zone 3 (or 4), but I can not control the development/highlight contrast of each individual scene. After reading “the edge of darkness” I have experimented with a two bath formula from Barry Thornton that seems to do a good job of developing to an average in the highlights. In 120 I use 3 Hasselblad backs with a n-1,n,n+1 and develop accordingly.

Am I missing something with 135 that I could be doing to get full tonal range throughout an entire roll that would work better than Barry Thornton 2 bath?
 
Consider using this source:

http://www.precision-camera.com/rff-ultra-high-resolution-scans

Advertisier here on rangefinder.

I develop film and make a contact sheet of the negatives. Sometimes I make a few prints as I do have an analog darkroom. But it’s getting less and less use now. I can be much more creative with digital and it’s so much easier now using my iPhone or iPad to make photos and process on my iMac.

For me, helping those in front of the camera and using the skills I have learned over the decades is most important for me.
 
Ccoppola82 said:
Perhaps a more experienced person can comment on this, but I’ve found using the zone system on 135 to be done in a sort of compromising way. In a 36 shot roll I am likely to encounter a variety of contrast ranges in my scenes. I can use the zone system to place my textured shadows accurately in zone 3 (or 4), but I can not control the development/highlight contrast of each individual scene. After reading “the edge of darkness” I have experimented with a two bath formula from Barry Thornton that seems to do a good job of developing to an average in the highlights. In 120 I use 3 Hasselblad backs with a n-1,n,n+1 and develop accordingly.

Am I missing something with 135 that I could be doing to get full tonal range throughout an entire roll that would work better than Barry Thornton 2 bath?
Click to expand...

Zone system really works best for large format and sheet film so you can meter and adjust for each image. I think Roger hinted at it and I responded to in a post up in the tread a bit. His #3 response is close to what i would do.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, EI anyway. Determining ISO is beyond most people, including me. If you can do it, I salute you.

Basically, ISO is a combination of opinion and arbitrary choice. EI is the same only more so. The only question is what degree of (sometimes false) precision you seek.

What do you LOSE by giving an extra stop, or even two stops, of exposure with large format? Nothing, as long as you are (a) consistent and (b) happy with the result.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Roger the testing takes all the ambiguity out of it. You find the exact ISO/ASA for the film, dev, temp, agitation, camera and lens you are using. So you know once you have tested a camera with the lens and the same dev film combo if you agitate consistently and use the exact same temp you will get very consistent results. This is how Adams and others in that school of thought were able to full control the process and then they would fine tune it all in the printing. The testing is a major pain in the ass and took half a semester if I remember correctly. Then there is the entire printing side of it all which is a journey all it's own but we wont get into all that now ha ha...

You are right it is far beyond what many want to learn or need to. I haven't shot a zone system image in decades but I am so glad I know it.
 
Pfreddee....looking back on your original post. How will they print your negatives...Machine prints or enlargements? Analog or digital. These outputs and who is printing them...would reflect on how you process your negatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom